[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090326002554.GD11024@duck.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:25:55 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Jiri Gaisler <jiri@...sler.com>
Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: next-20090310: ext4 hangs
On Thu 26-03-09 01:17:06, Jiri Gaisler wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for the updated disassembly.
> >
> >> 55bab0: 82 10 60 01 or %g1, 1, %g1
> >> spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> >> 55bab4: 40 06 4b 20 call 6ee734 <_spin_unlock>
> >> 55bab8: c2 24 e0 28 st %g1, [ %l3 + 0x28 ]
> > OK, so it really seems that:
> > jinode->i_flags |= JI_COMMIT_RUNNING;
> > spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> >
> > has been compiled to
> > ld [ %l3 + 0x28 ], %g1
> > or %g1, 1, %g1
> > call 6ee734 <_spin_unlock>
> > st %g1, [ %l3 + 0x28 ]
> >
> > Which seems like a bug in the compiler or in the way implement compiler
> > barriers in spin_unlock() on UP sparc. Or is there some sparc magic by which
> > this is correct code? Any clever sparc guy?
> >
> Looks fine to me - the store is made in the branch delay slot
> of the call, so it will occur before the first instruction at
> the call target address executes.
Thanks for explanation. I knew sparc had some surprising features like
this ;).
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists